Re: [lmi] Patches to run the tests with, or without, any password

[Greg Chicares]

On 2014-10-25 23:53Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:12:28 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> GC> I think it's important to be able to test with any password, or with none,
> GC> so that we can run 'wx_test' the same way end users run 'lmi_wx_shared'.
> 
>  I've finally implemented this, please see the attached patches.

Committed. I worked around this:

/lmi/src/lmi/wx_test_create_open.cpp: In function `void 
do_test_create_open(wx_base_test_case&, int, const wxString&, bool)':
/lmi/src/lmi/wx_test_create_open.cpp:55: error: no matching function for call 
to `wx_base_test_case::skip_if_not_supported(const wxString&)'
/lmi/src/lmi/wx_test_case.hpp:66: note: candidates are: void 
wx_base_test_case::skip_if_not_supported(const char*)

with a blunt tool; feel free to suggest another way.

>  This change also takes care of the failure in validate_output_mec test.
> However there is still one other test case which passes with the
> unutterable password, but fails without it: input_validation one. The
> reason for this is clear enough, in normal use trying to run
> CoiMultiplier.cns results in the following message box
> 
>       ---------------------------
>       Error
>       ---------------------------
>       Input validation problems for '':
>       Lowest COI multiplier entered is 0.85, but 1 is the lowest multiplier 
> allowed.
> 
>       [file .\input_realization.cpp, line 260]
> 
>       ---------------------------
>       OK   
>       ---------------------------
> 
> instead of the expected, as described in the item 15 of the testing
> specification, one:
> 
>       ---------------------------
>       Error
>       ---------------------------
>       Input validation problems for '':
>       COI multiplier entered is '0', but it must contain at least one number 
> other than zero.
> 
>       [file .\input_realization.cpp, line 260]
> 
>       ---------------------------
>       OK   
>       ---------------------------
> 
>  The only solution I see here is to check whether the password was given
> explicitly in the test. But even then I am not sure if the test should be
> skipped if it wasn't given, or just check for a different error message?
> 
>  I'm afraid I can't decide on my own what would be the most useful thing to
> do here, so I'd be thankful for any advice,

Sorry, I don't know; I'll have to defer to Wendy.